DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, you know, it's difficult enough to live in a state that prohibits you from owning any type of magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. But then, on top of that, they make it as difficult for you as possible to even get the rounds to put in it. So today, we're going to be talking about a big update in Rhode V. Bonta. If you don't know what that case is, it's a case that challenges California's background check scheme for ammunition. That's been a big problem in California all across the state. You're seeing a lot of false positives, a lot of people walking into the shop to get what they need, and they're forced to walk out empty-handed, even though they're law-abiding eligible people. It's been a big problem; it's now a big problem in New York. But again, this case, Rhode V. Bonta, it's been going on for quite a bit. It's currently sitting in front of Judge Benitez, and we have some pretty big updates, like I was saying before. So let's talk about what's going on and what we can expect. I think California's ammunition background checks are over.

Hey, real quick, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. I am on my final push to 500,000 subscribers—half a million subscribers. I honestly never thought that I would ever say that. When I had 10 subscribers, I was extremely excited and thrilled and happy to be doing what I was doing. At the time, there wasn't really anybody talking about California laws or anything like that, to be honest with you. So I tried to push myself out there to let people know what was going on, and we've been growing, and now we're really, really close to hitting that 500,000. So if you are not subscribed and you're watching this video, it would mean the world to me if you would hit that subscribe button. It's free; it only takes a second, but it gets us just that little bit closer to that 500,000 mark. Half a million would be fantastic. So again, anybody that's watching that decides to do that, thank you all very much. And if you don't, still, I appreciate you stopping by. Let's get to the video.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Now you might remember that I made a video just over a month ago talking about how the plaintiffs and the defendants—the state being the defendants in this case—met before Judge Benitez. The reason why is because the state wanted more time to find some type of historical analog post-Bruan that could prove that their law should exist as it is today because Bruan says that there has to be some type of historical relevance that existed between the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 to the Reconstruction Era. If California couldn't find a similar law that existed and was held up back then, then their law is fundamentally unconstitutional as it stands today. California wanted more time to be able to do that, even though this case has been going on for a long time. But you have to remember that a majority of this case existed prior to Bruan, so that wasn't necessarily a requirement. Well, being a patient person, Judge Benitez granted them that time to do that. And I got to be honest, when they came back with their reply just recently, it's absolutely stunning the stuff that they came up with as some type of historical analog. I mean, it is unbelievable and racist.

So, we got both responses in, and now everything is before Benitez, and now it's basically over. We are waiting now for a decision in this case from Benitez, whether or not this whole ammo background thing is unconstitutional. But let me go ahead and talk to you about a couple of the responses both from the state, the defendants, and from the plaintiffs in this case.

Okay, so let's just briefly summarize California's responses. And I've got to be honest with you, like I said before, a lot of them were just racist. I mean, they were from an era where the slaves who were just freed weren't actually considered to be part of the people under the Constitution. And so, a lot of southern states were creating laws that would keep them from owning arms because again, they weren't protected by the Constitution as the people. And we know that that's no longer the case, and it hasn't been the case for quite a while. But California still wants to use that to justify their background checks as they stand today. A lot of the other stuff that was presented by California really, to me, seemed to have no relevance to the law at all. So, it didn't serve as a historical analog whatsoever, and I think that's pointed out very well by the plaintiffs in this case. And you guys will see that if I just read you just the first paragraph here of California, or excuse me, of the plaintiff's response of Ro's response to the state. So, the plaintiffs in this case, the ones who are trying to overturn California's law, say the state again fails to identify a single such law in its new declarations, let alone any tradition of such laws. Not one of the laws cited by the state's purported experts remotely resembles any of California's first-of-their-kind laws. That is the end of the analysis here. Now the plaintiffs go on in this final response that was just filed to Judge Bonz by basically tearing down all of the historical analogs and declarations that were given by California's so-called experts in this case. I'll give you one of them; this is probably the one that came the closest because they all fell completely short of being even somewhat relevant to California's laws that stand today. And they didn't even use the correct timeline, so a lot of them just don't even count, to begin with.

But it says here, number one, the Spitzer declaration. Spitzer's basic premise is that firearms and ammunition licensing laws have been prevalent throughout American history. As an initial matter, few of the licensing laws that Spitzer cites are from before 1868. Now, like I said in the beginning, we're talking about Bruan; it's from the ratification of the Second Amendment all the way up to the Reconstruction Era, about 1868. So if the law was created after that, it doesn't really serve any relevance to Bruan at all. So it says here, according to Bruan, they are thus of little value. What's more, Spitzer exaggerates the prevalence of permitting laws. In fact, few of the laws he claims to be permitting laws actually are; rather, they are comprised of no-discharge laws, basically firearms prevention laws, hunting license laws, and others.

So, I just gave you one example of some of the declarations that the state of California provided to Judge Bonz to try and say that their law should be allowed to stand. So we have stuff that prevents fire here; we have relevance to old hunting laws that are not even from the period that Bruan lays out for us. And so, we also have things like Native Americans and people who were just freed being not considered the people; they were subject to different laws at the time and things like that. And that's some of the stuff that California used and what California thinks should still apply today. I mean, I don't know if that tells you what you need to know about California, but it sure tells me a lot. If they're willing to take those old laws that were completely unconstitutional at the time and no longer exist today to say that their laws should stand as they are, I mean, these laws were even turned over. So California is almost admitting to the fact that, well, their law is like that and should be turned over. And so, what the plaintiffs, what Ro is asking for here is a summary judgment. And so that's going to be different than the injunctive relief that you've seen in like looking for in like Miller and Duncan, right? Where Benitez comes out and he grants the injunction, and that gets appealed. What they're saying is that Benitez needs to rule from the bench on this one and simply overturn the law as it stands today. No need for an injunction; we've already proven that it's unconstitutional. There's no historical analog; there's no historical relevance to California's law as it stands today. And you should just decide this one and put out an order saying that it's unconstitutional and just skip the injunction altogether. That's what they're asking for, and I think that's what they're going to get in this case. And that would have a pretty big effect on any lawsuits that might be filed in New York, given that New York is facing some of the same problems that California is these days. So again, this is huge. Basically, these are the final arguments that California has to justify why their background checks should exist. And if that's the best that they have, well, then it's laughable. It's laughable at best. The constitutional arguments from the plaintiffs here are extremely strong, and the defense from California is about as weak as wet cheese on a windy day. I mean, it's just not going to hold anything. So, I think we are going to see a summary judgment from Benitez in this one, and that'll be it for the law.

So, this is all very exciting; we're seeing a lot of things happening in California right now with Duncan and Miller and Rhode. And we're just seeing everything is basically going backward for the State of California, which is fantastic for us people who believe in freedom. But not so good for those people who've been pushing these laws on Californians for the past 60 or 70 years. So, I wanted to share that with you. I am very excited that all of the arguments are in, and now we're just waiting on the order from Benitez. As you know, that could take some time, but I'm still optimistic. So thanks again very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.